This is how the French makes it into English sources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In that one case at least, yes.

totally divorcing meaning from authorial intent and context. And this move was given an almost political connotation, a "freeing of the sign." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see the connection between the two. In fact, divorcing meaning from authorial intent and context is quite nonsensical in most cases. The sign is freed as soon as the word (be the type or token) is not the concept it represents; which is indeed the signifiant and signifié, evidently so as soon as we know the former literally means image maker, the latter image made (made an image).

Meaning can indeed be divorced from authorial intent and context, but that only happens in dictionaries or when quoting one. That is indeed the signification/sens distinction:

D’après la distinction signification / sens classique, la signification concernerait le signe pris hors contexte et le sens ce même signe considéré en tant qu’élément d’un texte — https://www.linguistiquefrancaise.org/articles/cmlf/pdf/2008/01/cmlf08174.pdf

People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And all of those operations are operations of the mind, therefore bounded by the rules of the mind, which we may call laws of thought.

Are you saying the poster's sentence is not adequate English? — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, I am saying he is a dimwit, which he is. But since you asked, he should have written "as unlikely as it seems", instead of "unlikely as it seems". The "for that matter" phrase also doesn't make sense to be there, since the discussion/matter isn't around the word 'language'. Besides that, starting a conclusive paragraph with "So" is bad style, one ought to use these instead.

But your point reduces to the tautological: the mind can't operate rationally without operating rationally. No one disagrees with that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am aware of that. The tautology therefore is about law of thought, not about laws of logic, a different concept, thus it does not follow that laws of logic are unbreakable.

Moreover, even that point is not required, since we know that people do break laws of thought — TonesInDeepFreeze

Do I have to repeat my definition, which, if anything, is quite the appropriate definition?

if there is a single law of logic that can be broken, and that law of logic corresponds with a law of thought, then there is a law of thought that can be broken — TonesInDeepFreeze

If the law of logic is understood as expressing a law of thought — which in modern days that is not how it is understood, hence my original comment to Leontiskos —, by definition it can't. If law of logic is understood as how we understand it today, laws of thought do not correspond to laws of logic because, as we have agreed, the latter may not be respected by some system, they may only allude to or be inspired by laws of thought.

I'm not talking about guessing what post was quoted. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I am. You constantly mistake what post is being quoted. So click the arrow+name.

"Jack is happy" is grammatical even when the speaker misused the word 'happy' while thinking it meant 'doleful'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I have refuted that already. Talking of circles.

So, unlikely as it seems, you apparently don't know what "rules" means, or "language" for that matter. — tim wood

What an actual platyhelminthic dolt, my lord. Learn your own language first so foreigners don't have to teach it to you.

Is (a→b)→(a∨b) logical? Yes. Is it logically correct? No, not classically at least.

Yes, I should have verified who you were referring to. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Naturally, since I am evidently reading your posts.

I missed it.

Oh, please! Talk about inane nitpicking that isn't even correct! Obviously I'm using 'grammatical' in the sense of 'grammatically correct'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Case in point:

You insist on the most innane nitpicks on when it comes to mathematical and logical language. — Lionino

The pot calling the kettle black.

To clarify, my post

I am not interested in your illiterate, monolingual ramblings about grammar. Spare yourself because I am not reading them. — Lionino

is addressed at tim wood, not anyone else.

You have to click on your own name on my posts to see what post I am referring to.

I don't understand "Your argument stooped to the tactic of citing ambiguity as if we would not be discussing modulo certain ambiguities.", not the post above that one.

But you are. Right now. Anyway, my posting is not based on whether you read or don't read. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That post is clearly not addressed at you. It says "tim wood" right on top.

I don't understand that.

I didn't say 'morphological cases'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

In linguistics, "case" and "declension" can only refer to morphology.

From the definitions you posted yourself. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nothing in my post includes the equality of syntax and grammar.

I have found Merriam to be good, especially unabridged, but some deterioration over the years. — TonesInDeepFreeze

A good circus perhaps.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/womyn
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/POC
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folx

Merriam-Webster, incompetent as it is, also was not taught basic geography during school, thinking that Africa equals black: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/black (2a).

It's a nod to Saussure — Count Timothy von Icarus

Even if it is, those words existed before Saussure. They were normal words of the French lexicon before Saussure turned them into jargon.

Unless anyone here wants to show an iota of knowledge of Greek, or at the very least of French, I will discard all your unwarranted opinions on grammatical matters and hear it as it is: "bar bar bar bar".

(1) 'have' should be 'has' — TonesInDeepFreeze

That is morphological, not syntactic.

(2) 'piink' is not a word — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is a misspelt word. It has nothing to do with syntax.

(3) 'forhead' is not a word' — TonesInDeepFreeze

Same thing as above.

Are the words in correct case, inflection, etc. — TonesInDeepFreeze

English has no morphological cases. And those have nothing to do with syntax.

If you show me "The cat is black" then I will mark it as grammatical, not matter where you got the sentence. — TonesInDeepFreeze

For starters, every sentence is grammatical. Not every sentence is grammatically correct. It doesn't matter how you mark it, you don't know enough grammar to be grading language assignments.

I am not interested in your illiterate, monolingual ramblings about grammar. Spare yourself because I am not reading them.

I can't believe you stooped to such a sophomoric argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

My "argument" is a demonstration that it is not just semantic correctness that suffers from not knowing the context around a sentence, but also morphosyntactic correctness. Considering you thought that adjective or adverb were a syntactic role and not a morphological one, you are absolutely in no position to judge what a good argument about grammar is or isn't.

Not that I trust "Google dictionary" — TonesInDeepFreeze

Merriam Webster is not reliable neither is it competent. Google dictionary isn't a dictionary, it works the same way Google does.

But one of yours [emphases added]: — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, one of mine. Why did you ignore the very first one and most reliable? The "sometimes" there takes it from ancient grammarians who understood grammar, as today defined, to be about morphology and syntax. That has no business in today's linguistics, where semantics and phonology are very much fields. If semantics and phonology are not included in grammar, the word grammar has lost its sense. Where else are those two supposed to be included? It has to be grammar.

The usual sense of 'grammar' is 'syntax' — TonesInDeepFreeze

It is not. You insist on the most innane nitpicks on when it comes to mathematical and logical language. Now you want to insist on something that is categorically wrong by every single standard, including the reliable sources provided.

—

How can you insist that "grammar is syntax" when you even want to settle for the source that says that it categorically includes morphology, not just syntax?

You thinking that my post was supposed to be a counter-argument is a bit funny.

Peirce is also careful to distinguish between the experimental endeavour, versus just "reading about" something, which I also endorse. — Pantagruel

Mary's room.

Francisco Suarez, one of the greatest.

Are it being said that Godel finally proved this fact about the human mind from pure mathematics? — Gregory

No, though some argue something like that.

Up next:

God does not play dice. — Einstein

You can just click on the arrow to see what post the person is referring to instead of guessing.

I am not talking about that.

Everytime you say those well-formed phrases are syntactically correct, I agree. But they are not grammatically correct if the speaker thought/meant something other than what those words actually mean. So I cannot say they are grammatically correct.
— Lionino

Now, you're arguing by reiteration of your claim. When it comes full circle like that more than once, rational discussion is diminished. — TonesInDeepFreeze

My post there is from 3 hours ago. I was not reiterating anything.

The post you are quoting here is from 3 hours ago.

What? You don't know how "[emphasis added]" works? — TonesInDeepFreeze

I do that everywhere else. But that is how it goes here. In Rome like the Romans.

When you add emphases (such as bold or italics) to my quotes, you should indicate that the emphases were added. — TonesInDeepFreeze

When you quote people here, the original italics or bold are lost, so it is of common understanding that, when a quote features those, it is the quoter who has added them for a purpose.

Look it up. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ok.

A common contemporary definition of grammar is the underlying structure of a language that any native speaker of that language knows intuitively. The systematic description of the features of a language is also a grammar. These features are the phonology (sound), morphology (system of word formation), syntax (patterns of word arrangement), and semantics (meaning). — British Encyclopedia

The whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics; grammar was one of the seven liberal arts. — Oxford Reference

The google dictionary simply cuts from the OR entry.

the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics. — Google dictionary

Now, by the people who actually own the word:

grammaire
nom féminin
1. Ensemble des règles qui président à la correction, à la norme de la langue écrite ou parlée : Exercice de grammaire. — Larousse

Curiously, the BE article also has to take refuge in modern French words to express itself:

This led to the distinction that, in modern theory, is made with the terms signifiant (“what signifies”) and signifié (“what is signified”) — British Encyclopedia

One may wonder if they will be improperly used some decades from now, if they aren't already.

Syntax and grammar are synonymous in some contexts and nearly synonymous in others. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, synonymous for people who didn't actually study grammar.

If we consider those laws of thought to be necessary for rationality, then they cannot be broken without incurring irrationality. — TonesInDeepFreeze

The ambiguity in the word 'rationality' shows up again, which is why I have edited the post you are quoting. So now it reads "as the necessary conditions/operations for my/human/any mind". In this sense, I don't think it can be broken, as the mind, definitionally, cannot operate outside of these conditions. And I think such a definition is materially true — there are indeed some limitations to our minds, we can't say our imagination is unbounded.

But, if I recall correctly, you said that in general laws of logic can be broken, as you even gave an example of breaking the law of noncontradiction. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes. So, definitionally, we would find out those laws of logic would no longer be representative of laws of thought.

And as I said before, I still think the LNC overall articulates a law of thought, dialethias nonwithstanding. Same with paraconsistent systems and LEM.

To quote someone quoting Russell:

Identity: ϑ therefore ϑ;: a statement implies itself. But consider "this is the first time I have used this sentence in this paragraph, therefore this is the first time I have used this sentence in this paragraph" — Banno

Even though we have found a case where logical identity supposedly breaks, one may not argue that things are not what they are.

The very wrong here is you. Syntax and grammar are not synonymous like you need them to be for the absurd claim that semantics is not part of grammar to pass.

But that still doesn't make "My cat is black" ungrammatical — TonesInDeepFreeze

What I am explaining is that it does.

"The cat is black" and ask, "is that grammatical?" You don't track down the speaker and find out whether he knows the definitions of 'cat' and 'black'. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Of course. It doesn't mean however that it was grammatically correct. We assume it is because we assume the speakers know how to use words.

Now consider the following:

"Criteria is enough."
"Criteria are enough."

You would say the first one is grammatically wrong, because 'criteria' is plural. Here is the problem: there are actually some people in the world whose first name is Criteria. The ambiguous word in question is in the beginning of the phrase, so we can't choose the capitalisation. So, without knowing the intent of the speaker (which is often provided by context), you can't say whether they are talking about just criteria being enough for the accomplishment of something or whether the girl Criteria is enough to get the party going. And the issue that is at play here is not even semantics, it is also morphology and arguably syntax. Without knowing the intent of the speaker, we can't know whether it is grammatically correct.

It is semantically wrong, but not grammatically wrong. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Semantics is part of grammar.

When an idea is said to be an "object" this is Platonism, by definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nominalists agree that if mathematical objects exist, they would be platonic objects. But nominalists deny that mathematical objects are real, some think they are useful fictions. There are other kinds of realism besides platonic, including psychological and physicalist.

Note: it is platonism with lower case, we are not talking about Plato when the discussion is modern mathematics.

So truth for you is pragmatic then? — Metaphysician Undercover

That is a deep topic in itself and, though related, distinct from the metaphysics of mathematics.

By syntactical, I mean grammatical. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Well, case in point, isn't it?

Everytime you say those well-formed phrases are syntactically correct, I agree. But they are not grammatically correct if the speaker thought/meant something other than what those words actually mean. So I cannot say they are grammatically correct.

Even then, "if … then …" is indeed syntactically incorrect, and so it is also grammatically incorrect.
Naturally, syntactically incorrect → grammatically incorrect, but the reverse doesn't hold; just because something is grammatically wrong it doesn't mean it is syntactically wrong, example: "Rob have a piink horn on his forhead", syntax is fine, but the rest of grammar isn't.

And it wasn't stated as to what systems may deny, but merely as to what laws may deny. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Wasn't it?

for any law of thought there may be a system that denies the law, so any law of thought could be denied — TonesInDeepFreeze

I imagine by 'law of thought' you mean 'law of logic' here?

What is regarded as rational may be different for different people. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I addressed that before, it is tangential:

then I will just call it "my laws of thought" and then we are back to the problem of solipsism — Lionino

.

Doesn't matter what the definition is. People may break all kinds of norms of rationality in their thinking. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Ok, clearly you are operating under a thin definition of rationality, where one even can think irrationality. Let's understand instead 'laws of thought' as the necessary conditions/operations for my/human/any rationalitymind. Since they are necessary, they cannot be broken. If a mind does not obey them, that mind is no longer a (my/human) rationality.

Some theologists defended that God is beyond logic and may even break his own rules. God's mind therefore does not obey to any laws at all, be them of thought or logic or else.

The way it read was that there are laws of logic that may be broken but not laws of thought. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Correct.

But if any law of logic may be also a law of thought, then there are laws of thought that may be broken too. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Instead, if a law of logic can somehow holistically and correctly express a law of thought, that law of logic cannot be broken. If it can, it is no longer a law of thought, as by the definition I gave above.

Nethertheless, I think laws of thought and laws of logic are separate things; just that laws of logic are often based on how we try to linguistically express some perceived rules of our mind. Aristotle went along those lines, isn't it so? @Leontiskos

"I think therefore I am", for example, is not a law of logic, but it is pretty much talking about a law of thought.

"Bob has a red French horn" is syntactical even though the speaker meant that Bob's French horn is loud. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You keep saying it yourself. It is syntactically correct. True. I am saying however that it is not grammatically correct, and indeed it isn't.